I really do not understand how Atari can claim the Falcon has true
colour. He is my reasoning:
1) To me, and to many PC, Mac, NeXT, and even Amiga users, True Colour is
associated with 24bit graphics, that is 16777216 colours. The
Falcons palette is 18 bit (262144 colours). Not to detract from the
Falcon (which is after all a very nice machine) this is but a
fraction of the number of colours required for True Colour.
2) What I suspect Atari mean by "True colour" is that every pixel on the
screen is capable of being defined independantly of all other pixels.
Even this though is not quite true. Thus far all reports of the Falcon
have indicated 65536 colours as the limit for the "True colour" modes.
For a low-res (320x200) screen this holds true - there are only 64000
pixels on such a screen. However, for any mode above this - 320x480
for example - there considerably more than 65536 pixels on screen,
yet still Atari claim true colour.
I realise that Atari want to sell as many Falcons as possible, but they
seem to have gone overboard with hype, giving the consumer an inaccurate
view of a machine which, from all reports, ought to be able to sell on
it's own virtues. As an example, many people seem to believe, from the
material supplied by Atari, that the Falcon has an internal genlock, when in
terms of genlocking ability it has little more than the Amiga (such as
external synching) in that area. Whilst I hope the Falcon sells, I do
not ultimately believe that Atari are being entirely fair to the consumers
who will in the end purchase the machines.
? As long as the youngest child is free to dream ? Mark Steyn : ?
? Knowledge is no virtue and innocence no vice ?